The ways in which military and government control over thew news is reflected in the media during war and if and to what extent online media tools can limit this control.

 There are many ways in which the Military and Government control the news media during war as they both tend to share a common interest. “When media through their ownership have common interests with the ‘military-industrial complex’ it is doubtful whether they are capable of independent and critical war reporting” (Bagdikian, 2004: 156). Military and government control mean that when it comes to showing the public what really goes on during the war, they are reluctant to portray the truth because they do not want to cause panic amongst the people and their control means that whatever side they are fighting for is what is going to be reported on, not the opposition which can lead to a biased narrative. 

When the news is constructing a reality, they follow certain news values in order to create a good news story. “The nature of the dominant journalism tends to be aligned systematically, in ways that are likely to be mutually constitutive, that are institutionally and discursively resonant with one another” (Miller,2011: 205). Broadcasters should always remain objective and non-biased but when it comes to war reporting as “there has been much interest in whether there has been a fundamental transformation in governments’ attempts to manage news coverage of international conflict in the post-Cold war era” (Allan,2004:283). One example of how the government had control over the news media was during The Vietnam War or also known as ‘the living room war’ because people would gather around the television or radio together as a family and watch routine news segments of the war in Vietnam. This was because “the politicians who attempted to harness its influence” (Hoskins, 2004: 15), were reluctant to display the war on a medium that was in its infancy so instead they decided to create a television event that everyone could interact with from the safety of their homes. Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room as many believe “Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam” (Marshall Mcluhan,1975). This presents how much exposure the public were given through television and how prominent the news was to keep everyone informed.

Another example of how the government influenced broadcast news is during the war in Iraq. The government felt it was important to have a firm grip on what was actually being reported so during the war in Iraq, embedding reporters became more prominent than ever before as “the Pentagon saw its implementation in 2003 as marking a new approach to combat news management“ (Allan,2004,288). The government embedded and facilitated reporters to the frontline and are told by the government what they can and can’t say which angered British security servers because they believe that the government was using these reporters to make the war look better than it actually was from the inside which does not coincide with the news values about truthful and honest reporting that every news reporter should follow. This also meant that the narrative was focused on the British Government and that the reporting focused solely on the war and not on the wider political issues that may have caused the outbreak of war. There were a few benefits to embedding journalists for the government but mainly it was for security and reporting news in fast and real time. Having said this, there were some costs that came with it such as; Many journalists could see no action from where they were stationed so they may have made up so facts as well as bonding with soldiers became potential sources of news bias which means that the stories that they were putting out to the public were skewed and unfaithful.

As well as TV and radio news being controlled by the government, there were other outlets such as online blogs reporting on war and crime. Blogs enable journalists to access accounts from eyewitnesses to conflict and terror attacks, incorporate a variety of views and opinions on warfare, engage with comments and feedback, and broaden the scope of their journalism. “The impact of blogs on traditional media coverage became more prominent, previously sceptical governmental and military organisations have begun to pay more attention to digital media genres” (Bennett,2013:38).  Since 2008, the government realised that blogs would be a useful online media tool that they can control and monitor the content that was being uploaded and shown to the public. Blogs were a good way to relay eyewitness accounts from independent journalists or activists about what is going on from the perspective of a front-line military soldier. 

Blogs and YouTube videos were created during the conflict in Syria and became valuable sources for foreign journalist as it was the first conflict that was thoroughly documented by civilians. This was because “The Syrian government’s decision to largely ban international reporters from their country and to keep most of those who were permitted entry under close watch, demonstrates that even in the age of mobile and digital media devices and social networking sites, such bans can still have an effect, even if they are not as complete as they might have once been” (Rodgers, 2013:15,16). This meant that the public were the ones controlling the news and sources from the war in Syria and they were able to limit access that the government had using these online media tools because if it is fully documented by a non-civil servant, they cannot limit the sources that they used but it does question the validity, objectivity and trustworthiness of the story.

When it comes to control over news media content during wartime, the government are very good at controlling what they want but this control can be limited through various online media tools. There has been dispute over land in Kashmir between India and Pakistan for over 70 years, disputing whose territory it is and a religious controversy. As a result of this dispute, in 2019, the Indian government shut down all Internet access in Kashmir so any resident is unable to receive news or political propaganda that India deems to be harmful. The restriction, which the government has said are meant to “curb misuse of data for uploading, downloading, circulation of provocative content on the social media and prevent or reduce rumour-mongering and fake news” (Javaid,2020). Although, having said this, the militant groups currently residing in Kashmir are still able to operate using WhatsApp, this is because WhatsApp has end to end encryption, which means the government cannot read any messages and they can still use 2G so they can send messages as long as the messages are kept below a certain size. This also means that the aim of shutting down the internet is actually having little positive effect on the current affairs in Kashmir because media tools in the region are still being used by militant groups to continue this conflict. 

Another Online media tool that can limit the control of the government is a Virtual private network or a VPN. For example, in places such as China and North Korea, the government have control over every aspect of news, whether it be print or online as there is limited access for civilians. A VPN gives you online privacy and anonymity by creating a private network from a public internet connection and it masks your Internet Protocol address so any online action will be virtually untraceable and limits any control the government might have in trying to stop people from accessing certain news online.

The final online media tool that I would like to discuss that can limit control of news content from the government is Twitter. Donald Trump was the president from 2016-2020 and is an avid Twitter user, with Trump writing hundreds of tweets since he lost the election to Jo Biden, saying that he did in fact win the election. Twitter have been limiting and flagging Trumps Tweets since he lost the election because his tweets are portraying false and misleading information so Twitter are controlling Government propaganda and are not allowing Trump to do what he wants and deceive the American and worldwide public. Twitter have limited interactions with his tweets so no one can respond to his false claims about alleged fraud. Some of his tweets are saying that fraud was committed during the counting of the votes so Twitter officials are regulating his tweets by adding a caption that says “this claim about election fraud is disputed” or “Election officials have certified Jo Biden as the winner of the presidential election.” As Donald Trump resided as the head of the American Government for 4 years, this shows that online media tools can regulate what government officials are saying when they are using their applications and are not allowing false information to be broadcast or spread.

To Conclude, I believe that the government have a lot of power when it comes to controlling news content during war and conflict and this has been reflected in the past during the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, but since the emergence of online media tools in the last 15 to 20 years, government control has been limited to more of an extent whereby they are not in control of everything that the public are doing online. The government can try to control certain limits and guidelines that online media outlets have to follow, in order for a certain news narrative that aligns with them to be presented to the public, but, having said this, online media tools create their own rules and regulations that everyone has to follow, including government officials so that false or fake news is not spread and for all users to stay safe when using their applications. This will limit any grip or hold that the government might try to assert over them and only allow non-biased and faithful news stories to circulate.

Bibliography

Allan, S. (2004) Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime, London; New York: Routledge

Azaan Javaid, “Ban on High-Speed Internet Not Proving Enough to Prevent Rising Violence in Kashmir,” The Print, May 4, 2020.

Bagdikan,B. (2004,156) The New Media Monopoly

Bennett, D. (2013) ‘Exploring the impact of an evolving war and terror blogosphere on traditional media coverage of conflict’, Media, War & Conflict, 6 (1): 37-53

Hoskins, A. (2004) Televising war: from Vietnam to Iraq, London: Continuum

McLuhan, M. 1911–80 Canadian communications scholar: in Montreal Gazette 16 May 1975

Miller, J. (2011), ‘Wars and their journalisms’, Global Media and Communication, 7(3) 205–210

Rodgers, J. (2013) ‘The air raids that never were and the war that nobody won: Government propaganda in conflict reporting and how journalists should respond to it’, Global Media and Communication, 9 (1): 5 – 18